The NIST Report on the World Trade Center Collapse one year later: Still Dead on Arrival

[wildbilln864]

By Mark H. Gaffney


A note to the reader: In December 2006 Mark H. Gaffney posted a scathing critique of the US government’s official report about the WTC collapse on 9/11. One year later, the case is stronger than ever. * *

link

[hack89]

1. And what exactly is Gaffney's background?

it is clear he is not an engineer.

[wildbilln864]

2. google is your friend. n/t

[hack89]

3. I did - that's my point - did you? nt

[wildbilln864]

4. Attack the messenger...

and ignore the message.

[hack89]

7. what if the messenger is the message?

what if he is a professional CTr with an obvious financial incentive to keep 911 alive?

[mrgerbik]

9. he very well may depend on CT as a financial channel,

but in the end, who has more to gain?

A multi trillion dollar, global infrastructure dependant on dependence and 'events' to keep the Business as Usual paradigm alive

or

a individual with a vested interest in exposing and preserving the truth ... a process that invariably brings harsh personal ridicule and arguable financial woes?

[wildbilln864]

5. A snip...

"But the results were surprising. NIST found no evidence that any of the steel samples, including those from the impact areas and fire-damaged floors, had reached temperatures exceeding 1,110ºF (600ºC).<35> Sixteen recovered perimeter columns showed evidence of having been exposed to fire, but even so, out of 170 areas examined on these columns only three locations had reached temperatures in excess of 250ºC (450ºF).<36> Moreover, NIST found no evidence that any of the recovered core columns had reached even this minimal temperature.<37> The startling fact is that NIST’s own data failed to support its conclusion that the fires of 9/11 heated up the steel columns, causing them to weaken and buckle.


How might we explain this absence of evidence? Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead scientist, probably offered a partial answer when he admitted that “the jet fuel....burned out in less than ten minutes.”<38> Also, the actual amount of combustibles in the WTC turned out to be less than expected–––considerably less. In its 2002 report FEMA had noted that


“fuel loads in office-type occupancies typically range from about 4-12 psf , with the mean slightly less than 8 psf….At the burning rate necessary to yield these fires, a fuel load of about 5 psf would be required to maintain the fire at full force for an hour...”<39>


Yet, when NIST scientists crunched the numbers they found that a typical floor of the WTC did not even have this minimum level of combustibles. The average was only about 4 psf.<40> The shocking fact is that the twin towers were fuel-poor, compared with other office buildings: a finding, notice, that does not support the frequent depictions in the media of a ferocious inferno raging beyond anything in human experience. More importantly, neither does it support NIST’s favored collapse scenario."

[wildbilln864]

6. and another important point...

"A Vast Heat Sink


The reason is acknowledged nowhere in the NIST report, but ought to be self-evident. The WTC’s support columns did not exist in isolation. The WTC was no laboratory furnace. The columns in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed some 90,000 tons; and because steel is known to be at least a fair conductor of heat, on 9/11 this massive steel superstructure functioned as an enormous energy sink. The total volume of the steel framework was vast compared with the relatively small area of exposed steel, and would have wicked away much of the fire-generated heat. Anyone who has repaired a copper water pipe with a propane torch is familiar with the principle. One must sit and wait patiently for the pipe temperature to rise to the point where the copper finally draws the solder into the fitting. While it is true that copper is several times more conductive than steel, the fact that only three steel samples showed exposure to temperatures above 250ºC indicates that the steel superstructure was indeed behaving as a heat sink. The fires on 9/11 would have taken many hours, in any event, much longer than the relatively brief allotted span of 56/102 minutes, respectively, to slowly raise the temperature of the steel framework as a whole to the point of weakening even a few exposed members. "

[Flatulo]

8. Meh - steel is not such a great thermal conductor...

Copper is 8X better, and Aluminum is 5X better.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

I would expect the fires to have created localized points of very high temperature, but not for the structure to reach a uniform temperature due to conduction.

[wildbilln864]

17. duh!

no one said it was a "great" thermal conductor. Just that it is. :eyes:

on edit: Here.

[hack89]

11. So why can I heat a steel poker red hot

at one end yet the other end is perfectly cool to the touch? Steel is not a great conductor of heat.

[wildbilln864]

12. rediculous!

if youb hold it long enough, it will get hot and burn you, duh!

[hack89]

13. Ok - if you say so. n/t

[Flatulo]

14. That's not necessarily true, but I think the more important parameter is thermal

resistance. This is how hot something gets per unit of heat energy you put in.

The WTC towrers had a higher proportion of steel to concrete than say, the Empire State building. That means that the WTC towers were better heat sinks (dissipators of heat) than a more traditional structure.

This argument can cut both ways. One could argue that the WTC would heat up faster than a perfectly identical concrete structure.

One could also argue that the WTC would dissipate its heat fast enough to prevent the steel members from becoming hot enough to weaken.

In this case, I would go with the evidence since no one has offered a thermal model that I am aware of. The work that Barnett et al did for FEMA showed that at least some steel had heated enough to lose most of its strength.

In the case of the poker rod, the system reaches thermal equilibrium so you can in fact hold onto it forever. The rod is dissipating heat as fast as the fire is putting it in.

[wildbilln864]

16. blah, blah, blah! All that double speak...

still doesn't take away the fact that the steel framing was one big massive heat sink! :eyes:

[Flatulo]

18. Bill, no one makes heat sinks out of steel. They're always aluminum.

[wildbilln864]

19. WTF!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[greyl]

25. Not true. nt

[wildbilln864]

30. you're correct there...

Flatulo's post 18 is not true! They're not always aluminum but that matters not. The steel would act like a heat sink and wick away the heat. Thank you.

[greyl]

59. Unfortunately for you,

it doesn't really help support your main argument. It's an ultimately inconsequential detail.

[Sweet Pea]

51. Nice technical response there

Have any more cogent and professional rebuttals?

[wildbilln864]

27. Yes that is neccesarily true!

with steel! Try it.

[Flatulo]

15. This is pure handwaving on Gaffney's part.

> The fires on 9/11 would have taken many hours, in any event, much longer than the relatively brief
> allotted span of 56/102 minutes, respectively, to slowly raise the temperature of the steel framework
> as a whole to the point of weakening even a few exposed members.

I understand that the man's area of study is poetry, but even so, that does not make one an expert on heat transfer. As usual, these things are actually pretty complicated and require an army of analysts and some supercomputers to model.

[wildbilln864]

20. Maybe too complicated for you. n/t

[Flatulo]

21. OK, it's on. Please tell me the thermal resistance of the WTC towers

and compare to the Empire State Building.

Please show all your work.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. I don't think I've used this emoticon before

:popcorn:

[Laurier]

23. I haven't either.

But the mere idea of the remote possibility that "wildbill" might eventually offer up anything of substance is enough for me to break out the popcorn, too.


:popcorn:

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. and either way, we've had a tasty snack! n/t

[Laurier]

50. Yes, and that is the most that

one can ever hope to get out of the *cough* "wild" one's posts... bemused entertainment at the sheer ineptitude displayed, with popcorn on the side.

ETA: Chomp, chomp.

:popcorn:

[wildbilln864]

26. Thermal resistance of the towers!? You guys are hilarious!

The subject is the thermal conductivity of the steel. That's what I'm talking about. Your attempt to change the focus is ammusing though not surprising. :rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Thermal resistance is hilarious?

Oh, that wacky real world! What will it think up next?

You honestly can't see a connection between a discussion of thermal conductivity and thermal resistance? Really?

[wildbilln864]

29. Such a lame attempt bolo....

Thermal conductivity! If you can't understand it move on. :eyes:
Was the steel conducting heat away or not? Thank you.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Can you explain why thermal resistance has no relevance to the discussion of conductivity? n/t

[wildbilln864]

32. You haven't answered my question yet...

why would I bother with yours? It's not relevant to my point. So sorry if you can't get it.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. If you could answer mine, you'd have the answer to yours. n/t

[wildbilln864]

35. and...

"If you could answer mine, you'd have the answer to yours."
Why are you afraid to admit that the steel in the WTCs was a heat conductor?
:dilemma:

[Flatulo]

42. Because it is not the whole story.

Concrete is a heat conductor, as is cow manure.

Thermal resistance depends on material, shape, surface area, cross-section etc. In other words, geometry.

It is staggeringly incorrect to state that because the WTC was mostly steel, that it could not possibly have heated up because steel conducts heat.

Can you understand the difference?

This is why heat sinks are finned as opposed to being just chunks of metal. Same materials, but just change the shape a litte and presto! you have a completely different thermal resistance.

If you can't understand this then please move on.

[wildbilln864]

46. why...

put words in other's mouths? Who said it couldn't have possibly heated up besides you? :eyes:
One thing you guys want t forget is the steel was melted. The fires couldn't have done that. I do understand that. :banghead:

[wildbilln864]

34. In that "wacky real world" you speak of....

steel wicks(conducts) away heat! :banghead:

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Oh, my.

Steel conducts heat away at a certain rate. If the thermal resistance is high, then it does this slowly. If a large heat source keeps pumping heat into steel faster than it can conduct it away, then the steel begins to glow.

Just like a hot poker is glowing orange on one end, but you can hold it by the other end.

[wildbilln864]

37. " If a large heat source keeps pumping heat into steel faster than it can conduct it away, then the"

"If a large heat source keeps pumping heat into steel faster than it can conduct it away, then the steel begins to glow."

Agreed. But do you really believe you can hold that hot poker indefinitely?

[Bolo Boffin]

38. Do you really think

The WTC structure could hold up that weight in that fire indefinitely?

[wildbilln864]

40. Duh! The fire didn't nor would it burn indefinitely!

You say that as if the whole buildings was ablaze. They weren't.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Hmm.

They didn't need to consume the building. They didn't need to burn indefinitely. They only had to burn so fiercely hot that they exceeded the capacity of steel to conduct the heat away.

Steel isn't good at doing this. That's why it's fireproofed. When the fireproofing was stripped away by the impact, the structural steel was exposed to the rapidly growing fire.

[wildbilln864]

45. It shouldn't have been hot enough to do this...

[Bolo Boffin]

48. But it was. n/t

[wildbilln864]

53. no it wasn't!

[Flatulo]

43. If the steel can radiate heat away as fast as the fire puts it in, then

yes, the temperature will reach equilibrium.

In a long slender sructure like a poker rod, this is true.

[Flatulo]

44. Which is a better heat sink...

this...



or a solid brick of the same material and the same mass?

Same thermal conductivity, different thermal resistance.

See it now?

[wildbilln864]

47. yes, yes...

The fact still remains that steel conducts heat. No one said it was better than copper.
And of course it wasn't designed to be a specific heat sink but it still wicked some heat away? Can we agree on that much?
Possibly the steel surrounding the fires did reach an adequate temperature to weaken and initiate a collapse of the weakened portion but that doesn't explain the melted steel during and after the collapse nor why the rest of the steel framing that was undamaged failed suddenly floor after floor.

[LARED]

49. melted steel during ....the collapse.

I don't think you have any evidence to substantiate that claim

Do you?

[wildbilln864]

52. yes....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=189916&mesg_id=190220

[LARED]

54. How did you figure out it was steel pouring out

of the tower?

[wildbilln864]

55. Well...

actually I think it was molten iron. What do you think it was?

[AZCat]

56. Why do you think it was molten iron? n/t

[LARED]

57. Molten iron, not molten steel?

You're kidding? Yes?

Ok how did you figure that out?

[wildbilln864]

58. What do you think it was?

For the second time I ask.

[LARED]

60. You're the one making unsubstantiated claims

Not me. I'm not claiming it was steel. I'm not claiming anything. You are.

How about instead of changing the subject you answer the question?

[wildbilln864]

61. No, I answered one question...

How about you answer mine?
Otherwise, I have no more incentive to answer yours IMHO?

[LARED]

62. ok

I think most likely a metal like alum, or lead that spilled out of the building

Now back to what makes you think it was iron?

[wildbilln864]

63. Thank you. Not sure it was iron...

but reasonably sure it was not aluminum. Steven Jones makes me think it was iron, BTW.

[LARED]

64. Ok since you don't think it was steel, where did the iron come from -nt

[wildbilln864]

65. If it was iron....

it could be the result of thermit reactions as Jones has said. Same if steel. If it was aluminum. Where do you think it came from. Perimeter columns maybe? Weren't they clad in Al.?
Luch brk's over, catch ya later...

[wildbilln864]

66. kick! n/t

[AZCat]

39. The thermal response of the columns...

would be dependent on the geometry. The discussion necessarily involves more than just the thermal conductivity of steel.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Never mind.

This is talking about the December 2005 Final Report on the towers, not the upcoming WTC 7 report. My bad.